San Francisco surpassing L.A in Global Influence? (better, crime, versus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think there's any question--especially today with the second tech boom--that SF has more economic power than LA. LA has quantity; SF has quality. Just look at the per capita GDP and household income numbers
SF's budget is nearly the same as LA and will likely surpass it in the next 2 years. That tells you something about the tax base of the two cities, even though SF is far smaller
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,184,824 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup
I don't think there's any question--especially today with the second tech boom--that SF has more economic power than LA. LA has quantity; SF has quality. Just look at the per capita GDP and household income numbers
SF's budget is nearly the same as LA and will likely surpass it in the next 2 years. That tells you something about the tax base of the two cities, even though SF is far smaller
City budgets have very little to do with global influence. There's a myriad of reasons why a city budget is small. According to the OPs list (with no verifiable links provided), Portland has a bigger budget than Boston. Is more Portland more influential than Boston? Lol. D.C.s budget is bigger than both San Francisco and Los Angeles. Is D.C. the number two city in this country?
Even with the tech boom, there is very much a question of which California city is top dog economically. I'll give you it is a battle of quantity vs quality, but one that L.A. hasn't lost yet. And I'll take the opinions of reputable academics and think tanks over the incredibly biased postings of a Bay Area homer. In the year 2015, Los Angeles > San Francisco.
People > corporate headquarters. You're quick to downplay the GaWc ratings as just globally connected firms (when it suits you, of course) yet you overemphasize the presence of corporate headquarters. Corporate HQs, while important, aren't the end all be all of economic influence, and more importantly, overall influence. Otherwise, Bentonville, Arkansas and Omaha, Nebraska are top 10 global cities.
Influence isn't just economic power (though Los Angeles still leads here according to the experts: see academically researched link below). Influence has a lot to due with popularity (hence the obsession on this site over population), demographics, cultural relevance and perception. And I don't see San Francisco over Los Angeles on any of these. Close, but no cigar.
Very interesting ranking. You can see how Silicon Valley punches well above its weight, with San Jose jumping up to #15 in the second version of the ranking when they control for metro size.
Also funny how for all the talk about how LA "punches under its weight" it maintains a rock solid #7 even when metro size is accounted for.
No, simply because of the population numbers. Unless the Bay Area (which is what this is really about) suddenly grows by millions and millions of people in the next few decades, it won't happen.
However, I'm also a believer that after a certain population point, the difference between a 20 million metro and 30 million metro becomes almost negligible. Otherwise, Lagos and Cairo would have more cachet than places like London and Paris. The difference between 8 million people and 18 million people is a huge one (IE more than twice the number). That isn't to say the Bay Area is crappy or anything like that, but it's just a realistic consideration.
Once the Bay Area reaches around 10 million people, then the gap mentally will be considerably smaller IMO.
I do think they are a lot closer than people are giving them credit for.
No, simply because of the population numbers. Unless the Bay Area (which is what this is really about) suddenly grows by millions and millions of people in the next few decades, it won't happen.
However, I'm also a believer that after a certain population point, the difference between a 20 million metro and 30 million metro becomes almost negligible. Otherwise, Lagos and Cairo would have more cachet than places like London and Paris. The difference between 8 million people and 18 million people is a huge one (IE more than twice the number). That isn't to say the Bay Area is crappy or anything like that, but it's just a realistic consideration.
Once the Bay Area reaches around 10 million people, then the gap mentally will be considerably smaller IMO.
I do think they are a lot closer than people are giving them credit for.
Depends on where the metro is. There are plenty of metros in Asia, Africa, and South America that have more people than SF, but don't quite matter nearly as much in the global order of things.
If you're talking apples to apples, relatively, like US metro to US metro, or in this case CA metro to CA metro, then yes, population alone can make a large difference.
But the way the Bay Area performs, it doesn't need to match LA's population to exceed it. The sheer difference now is so immense. But there is going to be an inflection point significantly smaller than LA's population whereby the Bay Area overtakes it in global dominance across nearly any and all spectrum of measurement. Where that inflection point is, as a % of the larger metro's population, is TBD and up for debate. Plus, both metros are growing. LA isn't stagnating, though I will say it seems that LA's population growth adds incrementally less and less to its GDP and importance whereas the Bay Area's population growth adds quite a bit more (just based on the people each area still attracts, with a lower-skilled set going to SoCal and a much higher-skilled set still going to the Bay Area).
No, simply because of the population numbers. Unless the Bay Area (which is what this is really about) suddenly grows by millions and millions of people in the next few decades, it won't happen.
However, I'm also a believer that after a certain population point, the difference between a 20 million metro and 30 million metro becomes almost negligible. Otherwise, Lagos and Cairo would have more cachet than places like London and Paris. The difference between 8 million people and 18 million people is a huge one (IE more than twice the number). That isn't to say the Bay Area is crappy or anything like that, but it's just a realistic consideration.
Once the Bay Area reaches around 10 million people, then the gap mentally will be considerably smaller IMO.
I do think they are a lot closer than people are giving them credit for.
The NIMBY anti-growth policies are going to have to change if 10 million is going to happen anytime soon. Even with the Bay Area's economy booming, population growth is currently only 1.3% (up from 0.7%). At that rate, it would take 20 years for the metro area to hit 10 million people.
Depends on where the metro is. There are plenty of metros in Asia, Africa, and South America that have more people than SF, but don't quite matter nearly as much in the global order of things.
If you're talking apples to apples, relatively, like US metro to US metro, or in this case CA metro to CA metro, then yes, population alone can make a large difference.
But the way the Bay Area performs, it doesn't need to match LA's population to exceed it. The sheer difference now is so immense. But there is going to be an inflection point significantly smaller than LA's population whereby the Bay Area overtakes it in global dominance across nearly any and all spectrum of measurement. Where that inflection point is, as a % of the larger metro's population, is TBD and up for debate. Plus, both metros are growing. LA isn't stagnating, though I will say it seems that LA's population growth adds incrementally less and less to its GDP and importance whereas the Bay Area's population growth adds quite a bit more (just based on the people each area still attracts, with a lower-skilled set going to SoCal and a much higher-skilled set still going to the Bay Area).
Yeah that was the term I was looking for. "Inflection point" I think will begin around 10 million people, even on a mental scale. After a certain point, the population won't matter as much because no matter what, they'll be in the same tier.
For right now, I think the population alone can be a huge difference maker, apple-to-apples, since we are comparing two CA metros. However, I think the discussion will change 10 years down the line, depending on whether Silicon Valley becomes an even bigger center for all things tech or whether it becomes more and more decentralized.
Again, I think they're closer than what people give them credit for, but personally I wouldn't put them on the same tier just yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
The NIMBY anti-growth policies are going to have to change if 10 million is going to happen anytime soon. Even with the Bay Area's economy booming, population growth is currently only 1.3% (up from 0.7%). At that rate, it would take 20 years for the metro area to hit 10 million people.
Not that this is a problem limited to SF; we're dealing with it in LA as well.
Yeah, NIMBYism is something both areas are dealing with. But it's not nearly prevalent down here as it is up there. Hell, no one really opposed when 7th and Fig was built, and when that huge skyscraper was torn down on Wilshire and Fig (I wish I still had videos of the demolition, but ehhh).
However, like LA before it, the Bay Area is just expanding inland. San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties have some of the longest commutes in the country as a result of that. I used to work in foreclosures up in Northern California, and some of the lengths people would go through just to own a home were insane.
Simply put, one way or another, the anti-NIMBY forces will win out.
NIMBYism doesn't really come into play in SoCal until you get to Santa Monica, Malibu, etc etc.
The strength of the NIMBYism in these locales, which are relatively tiny little boutiquey towns, one being almost exclusively high end residential, is the same level of NIMBYism that San Francisco and most of the entire Bay Area enjoys, power global city (SF) on down to the Santa Monica equivalents (like Menlo Park).
It is a major major disaster of a force against the Bay Area, but at the same time, while everyone complains about the character of the Bay Area changing, the political activism and NIMBYism in the area, for all their bad with regards to housing prices and office shortages, do keep the area primed for being what it is - a major world innovation center where ideas, technology, and culture all collide. As such, SF/Bay Area will never be a large draw for lower-skilled immigrants, like LA is, and it will never become sterile, like a Dallas.
Unfortunately in this debate for Los Angeles, San Francisco has A FAR HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF INNOVATORS, LEADERS, ALPHA TYPE PEOPLE THAN ANYWHERE ON THE WEST COAST.
Ivy League Schools, Top 3 Alumni Concentrations
Harvard
1 Boston
2 New York
3 San Francisco
Yale
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Boston
Princeton
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Washington DC
Brown
1 New York
2 Boston
3 Providence
Columbia
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Washington DC
SF has the 2nd largest concentration of Ivy League grads in the country after New York.
This article from LA, is actually about LAs lackluster appeal to to the best and the brightest around the country.
Quote:
You're quick to downplay the GaWc ratings as just globally connected firms
Haha
Los Angeles A
San Francisco A-
This is perfectly fine by me. lol.
Quote:
yet you overemphasize the presence of corporate headquarters.
Actually, GAWC has a ranking of that. No need to be jelly.
GAWC Command and Command Cities, 2012
Tokyo 6.8797
New York 6.5162
London 5.5968
Beijing 5.4434
Paris 5.0274 BAY AREA 4.0590
Seoul 2.1755
Moscow 1.7560
Hong Kong 1.7127
Dallas 1.6883
Washington DC 1.6056
Zurich 1.5518
Chicago 1.4084
Toronto 1.4039
Notice the huge drop off after the Bay?
You people really need to stop being in denial.
Quote:
Influence isn't just economic power (though Los Angeles still leads here according to the experts: see academically researched link below).
Yes, opinions can be debated but FACTS CANNOT.
With more equity capital and market capitalization than the rest of CA and all 13 western states COMBINED, there is ZERO DOUBT who Wall Street sees as the economic epicenter.
Its not possible for $400 Billion in capital to beat $4 Trillion.
You and your experts can preen and twist stats all you want but money talks at the end of the day.
Last edited by 18Montclair; 08-11-2015 at 12:59 PM..
Its a shame. There is potential for productive discussion here if some people gave it a rest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
